Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Ver. Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 In conclusion, the body of evidence does not show a consistent specific profile. + 766 word(s) 766 2020-05-06 13:28:52 |
2 format correct Meta information modification 766 2020-05-11 09:05:50 | |
3 format correct + 2 word(s) 768 2020-10-28 10:09:08 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Sahrmann, P.; Gilli, F.; Wiedemeier, D.B.; Attin, T.; Schmidlin, P.R.; Karygianni, L. The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 04 December 2023).
Sahrmann P, Gilli F, Wiedemeier DB, Attin T, Schmidlin PR, Karygianni L. The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed December 04, 2023.
Sahrmann, Philipp, Fabienne Gilli, Daniel B. Wiedemeier, Thomas Attin, Patrick R. Schmidlin, Lamprini Karygianni. "The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis" Encyclopedia, (accessed December 04, 2023).
Sahrmann, P., Gilli, F., Wiedemeier, D.B., Attin, T., Schmidlin, P.R., & Karygianni, L.(2020, May 06). The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis. In Encyclopedia.
Sahrmann, Philipp, et al. "The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis." Encyclopedia. Web. 06 May, 2020.
The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis

This entry aimed to systematically compare microbial profiles of peri-implantitis to those of periodontitis and healthy implants. Therefore, an electronic search in five databases was conducted. For inclusion, studies assessing the microbiome of peri-implantitis in otherwise healthy patients were considered. Literature was assessed for consistent evidence of exclusive or predominant peri-implantitis microbiota. Of 158 potentially eligible articles, data of 64 studies on 3730 samples from peri-implant sites were included in this study. Different assessment methods were described in the studies, namely bacterial culture, PCR-based assessment, hybridization techniques, pyrosequencing, and transcriptomic analyses. After analysis of 13 selected culture-dependent studies, no microbial species were found to be specific for peri-implantitis. After assessment of 28 studies using PCR-based methods and a meta-analysis on 19 studies, a higher prevalence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Prevotella intermedia (log-odds ratio 4.04 and 2.28, respectively) was detected in peri-implantitis biofilms compared with healthy implants. Actinomyces spp., Porphyromonas spp. and Rothia spp. were found in all five pyrosequencing studies in healthy-, periodontitis-, and peri-implantitis samples.

culture-dependent techniques hybridization oral pathogens PCR pyrosequencing

1. Introduction

To date, dental implants have shown high survival rates of up to 99% over 10 years [1][2]. Even if much stricter criteria on success are applied, the concept of dental implantology still appears promising [3][4], despite the fact that certain limitations of the relevant techniques become evident. Besides minor prosthetic complications (such as crown loosening or ceramic chipping, which can mostly be resolved easily, and without big effort) peri-implantitis, as the most common reason for biologic failure, is much more challenging [4][5]. The prognosis of peri-implantitis therapy, however, is far away from satisfactory today [6][7]. The key feature of peri-implantitis is the progressive loss of marginal peri-implant bone as a symptom of chronic inflammation of the peri-implant tissues [6]. While particular co-factors, such as diabetes mellitus [8][9], tobacco smoking [10][11], and insufficient oral hygiene [12][13] were found to accelerate the progress of bone destruction, the primary etiologic reason for the inflammation of peri-implant tissues is the oral biofilm [14]. Peri-implantitis-associated biofilms, colonizing exposed implant surfaces, are composed of a plethora of microbial species [15][16]. Accordingly, any cause-related treatment of peri-implantitis aims at effectively removing established microbial biofilms and preventing new biofilm formation [6]. Like in the therapy of periodontal inflammation, which is also biofilm-induced, mechanical biofilm removal has been proven to be the most efficient treatment modality. Therefore, hand instruments, such as scalers or curettes, ultrasonic tips, or air-abrasive devices [6][17], and sometimes different kind of lasers [18], are used. Moreover, antimicrobials have also been used, yet with limited success [19][20]. Both measures, however, mechanical and antiseptic biofilm control, represent very generic treatment strategies and do not conform to the need for individualized, specific, and sophisticated therapy schemes. In general, both therapeutic approaches show strong limitations. In particular, mechanical access for debridement of submucosal areas and narrow infra-bony defects is difficult and cannot be performed to a satisfactory extent [17][21][22]. Antimicrobial agents, on the other hand, are largely ineffective due to the immanent defense mechanisms of mature biofilms, such as osmotic barrier function and downregulation of bacterial metabolism [23], especially if the biofilm infrastructure had not been destroyed previously by mechanical means [24][25]. Gaining more specific insights into the composition of peri-implant biofilm might trigger the development of targeted treatment approaches and, thereby, improve the prognosis of peri-implantitis treatment. Regarding the composition of peri-implantitis-associated biofilm, a number of key pathogens have been strongly associated with the peri-implant inflammation so far. Since suppuration is a characteristic clinical finding in cases of peri-implantitis, Staphylococcus aureus has been suspected to play a major role in the pathology of the disease due to its typical pyogenic potential, which is already well-known in the field of dermatology [26][27]. However, recent studies using modern diagnostic tools and molecular-based identification techniques did not support this hypothesis [28][29]. After comparing the microbiome of healthy and inflamed implant sites, Belibasakis and co-workers found a predominance of three groups of Treponema spp. and a Synergistetes cluster A around diseased implants [30].

However, there is still some controversy among researchers about whether the composition of biofilm in peri-implantitis is really different from the composition of biofilms in periodontitis-affected sites, or even from the microflora around healthy dental implants [29][31][32]. Accordingly, the aim of the present study is to systemically review the relevant literature regarding the composition of biofilm of diseased peri-implantitis sites and to compare the microbiome of healthy sites to that found at sites affected by periodontitis. Additionally, this systematic review aimed to describe the microbiologic profiles of peri-implantitis, periodontitis, and healthy implants based on culture-dependent and culture-independent methods.

2. Conclusion

In conclusion, the body of evidence does not show a consistent specific profile. Future studies should focus on the assessment of sites with different diagnosis for the same patient, and investigate the complex host-biofilm interaction.


  1. Frank J. J. Van Velzen; Ronen Ofec; Engelbert Schulten; Christiaan M. Ten Bruggenkate; 10-year survival rate and the incidence of peri-implant disease of 374 titanium dental implants with a SLA surface: a prospective cohort study in 177 fully and partially edentulous patients. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2014, 26, 1121-1128, 10.1111/clr.12499.
  2. Ulrike Kuchler; Viviane Chappuis; Reinhard Gruber; Niklaus P. Lang; Giovanni E. Salvi; Immediate implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration in the esthetic zone: 10-year clinical and radiographic outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2015, 27, 253-257, 10.1111/clr.12586.
  3. Bjarni E. Pjetursson; Daniel S. Thoma; Ronald Jung; Marcel Zwahlen; Anja Zembic; A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2012, 23, 22-38, 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x.
  4. Ronald E. Jung; Anja Zembic; Bjarni E. Pjetursson; Marcel Zwahlen; Daniel S. Thoma; Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2012, 23, 2-21, 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x.
  5. Jan Derks; Cristiano Tomasi; Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2015, 42, S158–S171, 10.1111/jcpe.12334.
  6. Frank Schwarz; Kathrin Becker; Stefan Renvert; Efficacy of air polishing for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2015, 42, 951-959, 10.1111/jcpe.12454.
  7. Philipp Sahrmann; Rengin Attin; Patrick R. Schmidlin; Regenerative Treatment of Peri-Implantitis Using Bone Substitutes and Membrane: A Systematic Review. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2011, 13, 46-57, 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00183.x.
  8. Monje, A.; Catena, A.; Borgnakke, W.S. Association between diabetes mellitus/hyperglycaemia and peri-implant diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 636–648.
  9. De Araújo Nobre, M.; Maló, P.; Antune, E. Influence of systemic conditions on the incidence of periimplant pathology: A case-control study. Implant Dent. 2014, 23, 305–310.
  10. Fabio Vignoletti; Giovanna Laura Di Domenico; Maria Di Martino; Eduardo Montero; Massimo De Sanctis; Prevalence and risk indicators of peri-implantitis in a sample of university-based dental patients in Italy: A cross-sectional study.. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2019, 46, 597-605, 10.1111/jcpe.13111.
  11. Stijn Vervaeke; Bruno Collaert; Jan Cosyn; Hugo De Bruyn; A 9-Year Prospective Case Series Using Multivariate Analyses to Identify Predictors of Early and Late Peri-Implant Bone Loss. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2014, 18, 30-39, 10.1111/cid.12255.
  12. Lisa J. A. Heitz-Mayfield; Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2008, 35, 292-304, 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2008.01275.x.
  13. Simona Tecco; Mg Grusovin; Simona Sciara; F Bova; Giuseppe Pantaleo; Paolo Capparè; The association between three attitude-related indexes of oral hygiene and secondary implant failures: A retrospective longitudinal study. International Journal of Dental Hygiene 2017, 16, 372-379, 10.1111/idh.12300.
  14. Mariano Sanz; Iain L. Chapple; on behalf of Working Group 4 of the VIII European Workshop on Periodontology*; Clinical research on peri-implant diseases: consensus report of Working Group 4. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2012, 39, 202-206, 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2011.01837.x.
  15. Georgios N. Belibasakis; Georgios Charalampakis; N. Bostanci; Bernd Stadlinger; Peri-Implant Infections of Oral Biofilm Etiology. Plant Promoters and Transcription Factors 2014, 830, 69-84, 10.1007/978-3-319-11038-7_4.
  16. Bruce J. Paster; Susan K. Boches; Jamie L. Galvin; Rebecca E. Ericson; Carol N. Lau; Valerie A. Levanos; Ashish Sahasrabudhe; Floyd E. Dewhirst; Bacterial Diversity in Human Subgingival Plaque. Journal of Bacteriology 2001, 183, 3770-3783, 10.1128/jb.183.12.3770-3783.2001.
  17. Valerie Steiger-Ronay; Andrea Merlini; Daniel Wiedemeier; Patrick R. Schmidlin; Rengin Attin; Philipp Sahrmann; Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy.. BMC Oral Health 2017, 17, 137, 10.1186/s12903-017-0428-8.
  18. Katarzyna Świder; Marzena Dominiak; Kinga Grzech-Leśniak; Jacek Matys; Effect of Different Laser Wavelengths on Periodontopathogens in Peri-Implantitis: A Review of In Vivo Studies. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 189, 10.3390/microorganisms7070189.
  19. P C Baehni; Y Takeuchi; Anti-plaque agents in the prevention of biofilm-associated oral diseases.. Oral Diseases 2003, 9, 23-29, 10.1034/j.1601-0825.9.s1.5.x.
  20. Ricardo Palmier Teles; Flavia Rocha Fonseca Teles; Antimicrobial agents used in the control of periodontal biofilms: effective adjuncts to mechanical plaque control?. Brazilian Oral Research 2009, 23, 39-48, 10.1590/s1806-83242009000500007.
  21. Jacek Matys; Umberto Romeo; Krzysztof Mroczka; Kinga Grzech-Leśniak; Marzena Dominiak; Temperature Changes and SEM Effects of Three Different Implants-Abutment Connection during Debridement with Er:YAG Laser: An Ex Vivo Study.. Materials 2019, 12, 3748, 10.3390/ma12223748.
  22. Philipp Sahrmann; Valerie Ronay; Deborah Hofer; Rengin Attin; Ronald E. Jung; Patrick R. Schmidlin; In vitrocleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2013, 26, 314-319, 10.1111/clr.12322.
  23. Vincent Zijnge; M. Barbara M. Van Leeuwen; John E. Degener; Frank Abbas; Thomas Thurnheer; Rudolf Gmür; Hermie J. M. Harmsen; Oral Biofilm Architecture on Natural Teeth. PLOS ONE 2010, 5, e9321, 10.1371/journal.pone.0009321.
  24. Patrice James; Helen V Worthington; Carmel Parnell; Mairead Harding; Thomas Lamont; Andrea Cheung; Helen Whelton; Philip Riley; Chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an adjunctive treatment for gingival health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, 2017, 11, 10.1002/14651858.cd008676.pub2.
  25. Danae Apatzidou; Modern Approaches to Non-Surgical Biofilm Management. The Scientific Basis of Eating 2011, 15, 99-116, 10.1159/000329674.
  26. S. Renvert; C. Lindahl; H. Renvert; G. R. Persson; Clinical and microbiological analysis of subjects treated with Brånemark or AstraTech implants: a 7-year follow-up study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2008, 19, 342-347, 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01476.x.
  27. Giovanni E. Salvi; Mirjam M. Fürst; Niklaus P. Lang; G. Rutger Persson; One-year bacterial colonization patterns of Staphylococcus aureus and other bacteria at implants and adjacent teeth. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2008, 19, 242-248, 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01470.x.
  28. Mia Rakic; Maria Grusovin; Luigi Canullo; The Microbiologic Profile Associated with Peri-Implantitis in Humans: A Systematic Review. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2016, 31, 359-368, 10.11607/jomi.4150.
  29. Gloria Inés Lafaurie; María Alejandra Sabogal; Diana Marcela Castillo; María Victoria Rincón; Luz Amparo Gómez; Yamil Augusto Lesmes; Leandro Chambrone; Microbiome and Microbial Biofilm Profiles of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review. Journal of Periodontology 2017, 88, 1066-1089, 10.1902/jop.2017.170123.
  30. Georgios N. Belibasakis; Javier Mir‐Mari; Philipp Sahrmann; Ignacio Sanz‐Martin; Patrick R. Schmidlin; Ronald E. Jung; Clinical association of Spirochaetes and Synergistetes with peri-implantitis. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2015, 27, 656-661, 10.1111/clr.12690.
  31. Hanae Saito; Anmar Adnan Kensara; Radi Masri; Microbiological Factors of Peri-Implantitis: Characteristics and Significance. Risk Factors for Peri-implant Diseases 2020, null, 35-45, 10.1007/978-3-030-39185-0_4.
  32. Vanessa Sousa; Luigi Nibali; David Spratt; Jose Dopico; Nikos Mardas; Aviva Petrie; Nikolaos Donos; Peri-implant and periodontal microbiome diversity in aggressive periodontitis patients: a pilot study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2016, 28, 558-570, 10.1111/clr.12834.
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : , , , , ,
View Times: 537
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 28 Oct 2020